It seems people, either through lack of attention or willful disregard, post in party specific threads, even though they are no longer registered as members of that party. This happens even after mod notes tell people to stay off if they are not registered as a member of that party.

Could we either eliminate party specific debates or devise a filter that prevents contamination of such threads?

I think having party specific debates are useful... even though they get used mostly during election periods. Sometimes a non-affiliated person responds because they don't immediately see it as a party specific debate... I know I almost posted in the most recent one. It would be nice if, in those threads, the site automatically checked the party affiliation of the member and prevented non-affiliated people from posting... I don't know the technological difficulty in creating such a process and if it would be worth the effort, considering. But, if not, I think the current monitoring approach works for me.

What's happened with me is that I enter into the debate without looking at the category on the home page and the warning is only at the top of the page... which I may not see unless I scroll up to the top of the original post.

Most of the debates are nothing more than a soliloquy anyway- no real debate. That is why they also usually die real fast. Probably the only truly expendable category on the board at this point- America's Debate has been refined over the years, and they are the only categories that seem a bit out of place- simply because no really good debate gets going there.

I vote for the former option. Since anybody can call himself a Democrat or Republican (and I've known of a least a couple of members here who've called themselves Republicans but unfailingly side with the Dems on practically every issue), what's the real point of these things?

The point of party specific debates is so that declared party members can discuss party specific topics. Examples are:

• Who should run for this or that office
• Who people support in primaries
• What should be added / changed / removed from the platform
• Should the person leading the party stay or go

etc. Personally I think it's a good resource, though looking at the various forums they seem underutilized.

I'd imagine coding a filter would be difficult and time intensive for Mike. Another solution might be that when hitting the new topic or replies buttons your routed to a page that reminds that this is party specific debate and asked if you wish to continue or go back. This might be just as time intensive for Mike, I'm not sure, though my educated guess is that it might be technically easier to accomplish.

I think the fact that there are, as Blackstone points out, Republicans who differ greatly in opinion, that it's possible to have debates that aren't simply soliloquy. Just because a member of a party doesn't tow the party line doesn't mean they aren't a member of that party. Sometimes people opt to change their party from within.

OS, you're pretty much spot on here as far as the programming difficulty for Mike.

We see the party-specific forums as self-regulating. We know you're all intelligent enough to handle that.

You guys may be surprised by the number of reported posts we've had recently over people who have posted to a party-specific debate that shouldn't have. The staff responded. All is well. It really didn't put us out much at all to correct any misplaced posts. It's not a trouble to us at all. That is what is supposed to happen in a self-regulated forum. Frankly, I think kudos are in order for those who helped the staff monitor this. Thanks, all!

I gotta agree with Overland Sailor. These particular areas definitely sound very useful during election time and I used them to get answers that I would rather hear from party faithfuls than someone who may have their own agenda in mine when posting.

CR


You know I was thinking the exact same thing in terms of Party Specific debates. They seem out of place.... remember, "where's the beef" commercials. that's what those debates are like.

I just browsed through and I think the biggest one had 35 replies. The Democrat thread averages about 2.5 replies per topics. I won't say it adds anything to the site from what I've seen over the years. In fact, other than frustrating people by allowing them to veiw without being able to reply(within the rules, that is)... I can't think of a single thing worthwhile.

However... if some people like the idea, I don't see a reason to remove the feature either.


I do have one question for administrators.

If I were to copy the debate questions, topics, and/or concepts I see in a political party specific debate and place them in a general debate...Would that be considered a duplicate topic??

Absolutely not. It's been done before. Feel free anytime.

That was my suggestion to one recent wayward participant. What I don't understand is if the vehemence is so high that one would cross boundaries, why wouldn't the same person post his own thread with the same topic? Perhaps such behavior could be considered a form of trolling?

Well, you have the right to consider it what you will. More often than not, people just don't realize they're in the wrong place.

Just out of curiosity, how exactly do you know that they are Republicans? Just because they say they are? If that's the case, then what really is the point of having party-specific debates, if there's nothing that defines what a member of a particular party is? Why not just have a forum for debates among members whose screennames begin with A-M, and another for those in the N-Z category? It would make about as much sense.

While I haven't done it myself, it is possible on to change one's declared party affiliation. This is only fair - people do change their views over time.

However, it also means it is possible to change one's declared affiliation in order to post on a party-specific thread. I've seen that at least once, and it isn't against the Rules as far as I can tell.

I think Party-specific debates have their place, especially in the kind of "where should we go next?" debates that happen from time to time. But you should bear in mind that not everyone that debates their will have the best interests of the party (whichever one it is) at heart.

Because that's the affiliation they chose in their profile. That's pretty much all the site can do. Can a Democrat join this site and claim in his profile to be affiliated with the Republican Party? Sure.



If we trust that the members of the site are being honest about their membership in a particular party, then - whether you agree with their views or not - there is a value in having those forums... the value has already been discussed here.

Because they say they are. You can't argue with what someone says they are or they are not unless it can be proven otherwise. Say someone says their favorite team is the GREEN BAY PACKERS. You cannot argue that it is not their favorite team even if they disagree with some of the decisions the team makes. Yes, I guess someone could lie about their affiliation but what good would that do them?

What's wrong with the honor system? Like I said before, we trust you all to be intelligent adults about your party choices and to act accordingly. staff does not want to be your nanny/mommy/daddy/federal government. Is it that odd we trust you to be honest?

Yes - not because you shouldn't, but because the political atmosphere is so toxic that trust is in short supply.

I don't think it is worth the effort to drop the categories. The only thing that I have witnessed as to be annoying, and it really isn't that annoying as much as amusing is a member changing affiliation to join the debate. At least one member has changed party affiliation twice in less than a year; but who cares, they have the right.

On a personal level, I completely agree that it is annoying when members (which are only a tiny handful, really) change affiliations as often as the breeze shifts. It's something, I suppose, we have to deal with. If any of you have suggestions how to address this, we're all ears. However, I suspect the few that are into the ever-shifting party affiliations is something we're just going to have to 'deal with' if we prefer to adhere to an honesty system.

Maybe like a limit per year of changes allowed and after that you have to request to change with a good reason. I guess that might take some work on y'alls part though.

This is a reasonable position for the forum to take I think. Personally I like having a Republican only forum to post ideas and have discussions/debates with fellow Republicans. It doesn't happen very often given the lack of declared Republicans here who post on a regular basis, but it is still helpful none the less. There have been and may still be cases of those who declare themselves as "Republicans" who clearly aren't based on the thousands of posts they've made in this forum. My suggestion is to simply ignore them and move on to constructive debate. So, I would vote to keep the current format for party-only debates.


Aquilla

You're probably talking about the Joe Wilson "What should he say?" thread. That clearly is not a Republican-only debate question. Oh well, can't stop this type of forum question beginning, and we really should pay more attention when it's a Party Only thread. But also those who start threads should do a bit of thinking too.

Might want to flag it in the starting post. Something like:

REPUBLICANS ONLY NEED POST HERE

Or:

LIBERTARIANS

And:

DEMOCRATS YAY!

You know, when it's not clear from the text. This takes some effort, but hey, it's a hard world.

Yes, and there's no way to test if you're actually registered as anything. People apparently do pay attention if you change your affiliation claim on the board. Probably not a smart thing to do.

But the warning regarding the fact that it is a party specific debate is just above the original post. If you're reading the original post, it's right there. Maybe it should be in bold and underlined.

Naw, that won't work. If it's a standard thing, people skim right past it. Make it obvious in the text of the opening post. That'll be seen.

Well, the thread is in a party specific forum and has a warning above the original pst indicating as much and telling those not affiliated with the party not to post there, but you think that original posters need to take the extra step and also make the effort to mention it in the first post. Nah, I'm inclined to think that this is a horse and water issue. A person will pay attention to their surroundings or they won't... those who won't will make more work for the moderators in deleting their posts. I see no reason to put the responsibility for another member's unwillingness to pay attention upon the original poster.

Plenty. Think about what the whole point is of having party-specific debates: to have a place for like-minded folk to discuss issues amongst themselves in relative peace. You defeat the whole purpose of that if you allow trolls to come on board and disrupt the discussion. You could just say, "Well, ignore them", but then why enact rules in the first place declaring who can and can't post in these forums, if anyone can easily evade those rules just by changing a label?

If we want to have an "honor system", how about letting everyone post in party-specific debates, but just be "on your honor" not to do so if you're against nearly everything that party stands for?

What do you suggest, Blackstone? A political litmus test to meet your standards of what a "real Republican" is? Like it or not, the honor system is the only practical one.

I think the restriction should be consistent. Even if someone appears to be Republican in their views, if they haven't disclosed under "Party Affiliation" that they are Republican, they shouldn't be allowed to participate in the Republican forums. For example, Republicans and Libertarians share some of the same views... just by their posts, it can be difficult at times to tell one from the other.

Actually, I was surprised to find democrats posting on that forum. And I was just as surprised to find that not only were their posts yanked, but the responses to their posts were yanked. If the responses would have been allowed to stay, that would have been warning enough. The fact that it's more work for the moderators is therefore the choice of the moderators.

Well, unless you didn't quote the offender, I suppose there would be no need to delete the response... except, if you didn't quote the offender in your post and the offending post was deleted, your responding post would have no reference... and no warning would be there in that post. So, what's the point?

I made my first suggestion in my first post on the thread: eliminating those categories. It makes very little sense to have an "exclusive" forum that anyone can participate in just by picking the label that goes along with it. And as for "honor system", those who've convinced themselves that their opponents are too evil or too benighted will easily rationalize away any such ethereal trivialities as "honor" when the greater good is at stake. I've seen that in action on this board.

Yes, it's amazing how some people have demonstrated a total lack of respect for the rules of decorum.

I concur with Blackstone. What a history making event.

As much head knocking as I have done with Aquilla, for example, I admire him for remaining a Republican when it has become sort of the "in" thing to be independent or whatever.