Move Politics To The Forums

[StrangeWill]

So a pretty simple thing that has been discussed off and on, do we move politics to the forums?

I'd lock it down to member-only, a few thoughts:

Pros:

• Threaded (yay)
• Moderation tools (very yay for mods)
• We can ban you from it (I swear no channel moderation in Slack sucks)
• No more 3 day retention policy (kind of both)
• Slower pace may lead to less... flying off the handle

Cons:

• No more 3 day retention policy
• Slower pace may lead to less activity
• Forces users onto the forums for a topic

BTW: this isn't like hard democratic "I'm doing what the poll says", I'm just curious general opinion.

 

[Jim O Thy]

I think the lack of retention policy is a dealbreaker on this idea. One of the specific benefits to keeping #politics as a retention channel is that it provides users with an arena to discuss without the implicit threat that their opinions are permanent and subject to search by anybody. Politics is a sensitive subject for many and I think keeping the discussions ephemeral is important for that.

 

[StrangeWill]

I think the lack of retention policy is a dealbreaker on this idea

If this is wanted except this kills the idea -- we could have the bot purge threads after a retention period.

It does mean threads will generally stay alive until they hit retention period, then the entire discussion evaporates though.

 

[PatriotBob]

After we added the retention we definitely saw a reduction of people arguing and then someone randomly pulling

You made this obviously wrong statement 2 years ago so now your argument is invalid.

And while people still aren't arguing in good faith all the time, it definitely removed a glaring problem.
Otherwise I'm kinda split on it.
Out of sight, out of mind. So I'm just not going to engage with it as much, and half the appeal is getting to inform people they're wrong on the internet in real-time.
But my other concern would be that it will stop functioning as the containment channel that it is if it's not in slack.
It's like removing all bathrooms and telling people to use the outhouse down the block. Now I'm just going to find people dropping trow in new and exciting places in and around my house.

 

[brb3]

I think the lack of retention policy is a dealbreaker on this idea.

Honestly, I think it's a good thing.
I feel like without a retention policy, people are less likely to say things that they would otherwise say if it had more permanence. Less likely to sling shit if there's a permanent reminder.
I can definitely see the downside though.

But my other concern would be that it will stop functioning as the containment channel that it is if it's not in slack.

I just don't see that being a problem, really.
Instead of `take it to politics :angryface:` we just hit them with a `take it to the politics board :angryface:`. I don't think there's much of a difference there.
If going to the forums is a bridge too far, then what you had to say wasn't that important anyway.

 

[frodoh]

Alright, fine, I'll make a forum account.

I strongly oppose the idea of moving political discussion to the (mostly dead) forums.

Unless I'm completely hallucinating 99% of interactions in #politics are civil, albeit sometimes heated - and that especially came to a head again post-election.

#politics often includes discussions of relevant local political developments which in turn play into the Chattanooga local emphasis of the org. I appreciate the things that I've learned in the channel that I just don't think would happen in the forums - there is simply no activity in the forums.

I'm not sure how I follow that individuals not following the CoC in #politics should lead to the channel being removed entirely. Individuals should be able to self-select for what channels they participate in and if individuals can't be civil then isn't there a process for that short of perma-bans, even considering lack of channel moderation?

Why yes, my (very limited) activity in slack is mostly limited to #politics, why do you ask?

 

[ryanmaynard]

Disclaimer: I personally don't mind of any potential outcome; kill the channel, move to forums, nuke all, etc.

Prediction: Along with James, I think the public and archival nature of forums will serve as friction. Even with purging, nothing prevents it being indexed or archived. Between that and the speed of the forums, I suspect it will "kill" political discussion, but maybe that isn't a bad thing at all. Maybe its a good thing that if someone wishes to be polarizing or abrasive, they are forced to do so where everyone can see? And that if it kills the channel, all the better? Idk.

As an aside, it would be interesting to figure out which topic or channel would drive better forum engagement. I don't think we've found one yet?

 

[brb3]

To give you some background @frodoh, the only reason #politics exists in the slack is to keep political discourse out of the rest of the slack team. The slack team explicitly avoids tight moderation of #politics because it exists as a containment channel.
That said, a goal of the moderation team is to make sure that the slack team (and by extension, devanooga) is a place for people to have on-topic _and off-topic_ discussions that exchange and challenge ideas without discrediting individuals or resulting to name calling, intentional provocation, etc.

The problem that we have with this is that slack does not provide very good moderation tools. Our options are to flat out ban someone's account or talk them into doing what is best for everyone else. There's no in-between. We can technically kick someone out of a channel, but they are free to rejoin it.

Also, given that all of devanooga's resources are provided to you and everyone else for free, and none of us make a penny in our roles administrating/moderating it, please try to be more civil than throwing comments like `(mostly dead)` around about something that we are trying to do to help everyone here. I get that you are trying to make a point, but you can do that without a curmudgeon tone.

To speak to the problem at hand, at the risk of paraphrasing what has already been said: the benefit of the forums idea is that we are then given some better moderation tools to help _everyone involved_. Sometimes it just requires giving people a bit of a cool off period so that they can reset.

Unless I'm completely hallucinating 99% of interactions in #politics are civil, albeit sometimes heated - and that especially came to a head again post-election.

While I'm sure it does seem like that, not all complaints are expressed in public. Often, people write the moderation team members directly to voice their concerns.

I definitely take blame in allowing recent events to make some people uncomfortable, as I was expressing to other moderators that the post-election time-frame would be touchy and that we should have compassion for people who are upset about the results. That potentially caused some hesitation in acting more quickly BECAUSE our moderation tools are so limited on slack that they are basically black/white with no shades of grey.

Now, with all of that said: It does seem that me and Will are the only two that are really interested in moving #politics to the forum (of those that have chimed in). It's quite obvious that the ability to moderate is the driving factor for that. If the forums are a bridge too far, then I would prefer we write up some Code of Conduct rules that are specific to #politics and enforce them with a heavy hand.

 

[frodoh]

please try to be more civil than throwing comments like `(mostly dead)` around about something that we are trying to do to help everyone here. I get that you are trying to make a point, but you can do that without a curmudgeon tone

I apologize if the phrasing came across as negative - I was merely trying to highlight the relative activity of the mediums. I'm in no way trying to denigrate the time, effort and resources that you and the other members of the moderation team/admin org do to keep the community alive and healthy. Devanooga didn't become the place it was be accident or chance, there has been very deliberate cultivation of culture and community.

I will preface my remaining commentary by saying that these are strong opinions, loosely held, especially since I don't have to worry about the burden of moderation and don't have all the facts.

---------------

People can say and do some dumb things. Often. Especially when personal convictions are involved. If anyone felt unsafe or harassed obviously that isn't OK. In turn as I understand the CoC anyone engaging in such behavior to induce those feelings in another person is already in violation.

On reflection I don't really know the details of what happened. I'm just very surprised that with what was publicly visible in #politics has led to considering closing the channel entirely. It's always been a channel where pretty much all ideas and viewpoints are challenged, and regularly self-moderates away from unduly hurtful treatments of topics or ideas (vis a vis the relatively recent considerations around the topic of religious faith and not using the channel as a place to bash religion). It really epitomizes CoC bullets 2-5 in my opinion. Albeit I'm probably more likely to see it that way because I'm generally more aligned with the sentiments generally expressed in the channel.

If there are private actions going on outside of #politics that are cause for concern I am also in turn surprised that the specific individuals involved aren't being dealt with.

 

[StrangeWill]

After we added the retention we definitely saw a reduction of people arguing and then someone randomly pulling
And while people still aren't arguing in good faith all the time, it definitely removed a glaring problem.
Otherwise I'm kinda split on it.
Out of sight, out of mind. So I'm just not going to engage with it as much, and half the appeal is getting to inform people they're wrong on the internet in real-time.

That's a super solid point -- the retention policy is to prevent people from digging shit up and being shitheels about it. It's a double-edged sword, I do agree with @brb3 that like "well it means you won't post things that are outright terrible" but at the same time, it also gives ammo to be terrible.

Prediction: Along with James, I think the public and archival nature of forums will serve as friction.

Public is kind of a solved problem, I'd lock it away, but the hemming and hawing over retention policies does make it a bit complicated.


----


Yeah I was mostly throwing it in a thread here because #devanooga-meta can swing wildly from topic to topic so this can fall off the "visible" part of the discussion quickly, I was mainly entertaining the idea because moderation tools in Slack fucking blow to say the least.

The main issue with Slack generally being is it's hard to remove someone from #politics -- I can ban them from the entire group but I feel that's extreme when someone is having an issue in an individual channel (a charged one that that, and super charged as @brb3 pointed out due to the election), I can kick them out but they can come back in, it's part of why I made the channel private for a bit, it's basically the only thing I can do.

I've considered adding channel ban support to devanewbot, so it can just kick you when you enter a chat you're not allowed in, though you can still peek in (a problem), and if you're speedy enough, can copy/paste/get kicked, though at that point I can count that as ban evading but still.