I think the problem is not necessarily political discussion in itself, but rather the potential devolution into personal attacks and incivility. In comparison to other open forums, I feel that this OGS forum is quite exceptional in the kindness, respect, and understanding that its users regularly demonstrate to each other. In spite of our size and openness, I think that this is one of the least toxic places online.
Ideas about reducing and even outright restricting political discussions have been considered by the moderation team. However, I think that weâve generally been hesitant to take such drastic actions. I feel that this is mainly because we have faith in our community and trust that we can discuss potentially contentious issues in a civil manner.
Further, I think that some sort of blanket âno politicsâ ban could create some difficult issues about exactly where one draws the line. Shutting down conversations as soon as they touch upon something âpoliticalâ, and the choice of which topics we do broadly deem to be taboo, could all wind up feeling quite Draconian.
I feel that community is better served by primarily moderating based on the civility of the discourse rather than the subject.
This page FAQ - Online Go Forum already articulates our moderation philosophy better than I can. Of course, it does leave a lot up to judgement and interpretation, and discussion about how moderation could be more effective and fair is always welcome.
I strained to be courteous, and gave you fair warning about your use of all caps and boldface. Now the gloves come off. I have decades of experience dealing with crackpot letters, as do many people in law enforcement, government, or industries that draw large public attention. Crackpot letters typically look like your text. Moreover, as previously hinted, such disfigurement of the text for the reason you provide is condescending and disrespectful. Persisting in the practice identifies you as a combatant rather than a serious discussant. This changes my whole outlook on the battle that I thought was a discussion. With the gloves off, I could eviscerate your response point by point. However, I would take no pleasure in such an operation, the readers would be bored (if they arenât already), and, most important, it would be an absurd waste of the little time I have left.
(Note to students of style: Torturing the font is a poor substitute for the effective use of rhetoric.)
It is a response to a vicious attack on me, after I gave fair warning. Moreover the only thing that might be considered offensive is my comparison of his text with a crackpot letter. However, what I said is a fact; crackpot letters look exactly like his text.
Like you, gosu_gosu, I had hoped that people attracted to a game like Go would be capable of independent thought.
Failing that, I had hoped that many would be sufficiently observant to notice a pattern in official propaganda over the last fifty years or so, during which a succession of leaders of mostly small countries (Yasser Arafat, Saddam Hussein, Milosevic, Gaddafi) have been held up for public hatred like Goldstein in 1984; while the leaders who destroyed entire economies and slaughtered people in their hundreds of thousands are held up as the saintly preservers of âdemocracyâ. But official propaganda is extraordinarily powerful.
In the Two Minutes Hate he could not help sharing in the general delirium ⊠Of course he chanted with the rest: it was impossible to do otherwise⊠to do what everyone else was doing, was an instinctive reaction.
The ânewsâ that the media present to people is also pretty selective nowadays, not just by being slanted, but also by what is emphasized and what is not. For example, many people think the war in Ukraine started in 2022. Few people remember that NATO started life as a defensive alliance, not an aggressive one dedicated to continual expansion. In the European Union, internet service providers are actually compelled by law to block some sources of alternative views. Elsewhere, large corporations are doing some of the same.
Let us be clear that what you constitute as âvicious attackâ is me just using bold letters for emphasis (which is part of the forumâs toolset) and the occassional caps for one word here and there.
I want to make this clear, because someone else that might read this might get the impression that I somehow threatened, actually attacked or insulted it you in some way, which most definitely did not happen.
Four things: a) I was not aware that someone saying âchange how you style your text, I do not like itâ means that the other person should do so, since no forum rule is violated and everyone is civil and courteous. I am very sorry that you do not like the way my texts look, but I think that the content is more important. b) I do not know what âcrackpot letterâ is. I googled it, canât seem to find a definition. c) I was not aware that taking offense on the way a computer text looks, so much so for it to be constituted as an âoffenseâ, was a thing. I suggest you petition OGS team to take out the bold button? d) If you want to talk about something being âcondescending and disrespectfulâ how about considering you dictating and demanding how OTHER people should write and express themselves? I was not aware that we could add and impose rules to other members. Since when do you have that ability?
And an extra one. This forum supports private messages. You could have sent that in private since this is just a matter of your personal preference instead of make a public fuss about it, just because you do not like how a post looks, of all things.
Just to put it out there- âhow you say itâ is often just as important as âwhat you sayâ. Not saying you shouldnât keep posting rambling posts, but you might have better luck conveying your point if you put some effort into the way you word your messages.
I totally agree with that. I wouldnât have any issue with someone saying that my post is confusing or extensive or a âwall of textâ. Quite valid criticisms Iâd say.
But come on, claiming that my post is offensive and costitutes a âviciousattackâ for using BOLD and capitalizing the occasional words?
I mean, really? Do you find this valid?
Do you think that one member should say to someone else how to write and how to express their thoughts else theyâd be âidentified as a combatant rather than a serious discussantâ
I think that this it taking too far
You should see my handwritting. Now that I might agree that it is a âdisfigurement of the textâ
By the way, my book used to be filled with italics and bold like that. I toned it down and removed the italics almost completely because someone told me that there is a significant amount of people that get dizzy by reading them. I was not aware of that and that was something objectively an issue, so I went into all the typesettings, all the versions, all the translations and changed everything.
All the pages were filled with them.
It took me days. But that was a valid problem. I didnât want anyone to get dizzy or feel excluded for such a fixable issue and ever since I learned of that I do not think Iâve ever used italics in a large capacity.
This case, however, is not the same.
In this case we have someoneâs personal preference publicly trying to impose their ideas about âstyleâ on someone else.
I ainât having that.
He is free to report me to the moderators (which is the correct avenue for any grievance, not public off-topic outcry) and even petition the bold button to be removed. They own this place, they should decide.
Oh, I am actually putting a lot of effort into it, but I think that I am a bit behind the times. I live and learn
I wasnât going to respond again, but I canât let the fraudulent implication that I said anything like that quote, or the lie that I was âdictating and demanding,â stand unanswered. All I said originally was this:
That is neither dictating nor demanding, nor is it a âpersonal preference.â It is factual information about what constitutes a good writing style (at least in English).
As âfactualâ as those values are âtranscendentâ
If you believe that, please press the report button, state your case to the moderators and if there is indeed such a factual list of rules that we all need to adhere, once those rules are added to the forum rules, by the moderators, I will THEN gladly follow them.
Until then what you stated and quoted is just your opinion since it is not accompanied by anything that makes it factual. It is not in the forum rules and you are just derailing while trying to impose your opinion on âstyleâ to someone else.
I find bolding and the occassional capitalised word very useful in large texts. That is my opinion/style, it is within the rules of this forum and I mean no disrespect with it, which is easily provable because I use it for myself as well.
You assumed that it was disrespectful. On your own. Sorry, but that is not my problem to solve.
Hit the report button and let us know what happened.
P.S.
I still donât know what a crackpot letter is. Anyone knows?
Why not do both? Keep debating/discussing and play Go? Win-win situation!
By the way, a game of Go is something that has as an outcome a winner and a loser.
A good discussion has as an outcome two (or multiple) people gaining new insights, so they are not really the same, right?
Now I want to watch political candidates do that.
Iâd settle even for chess or backgammon, compared to the parodies of debating that are held by our politicians
