It's not clear what a Swiss commission's legal definition has to do with posters ITF understanding basic English words. There only one Swiss poster, and she got a perfect SAT, so I assume she knows American English vernacular.

I agree with allowing name calling. However I really agree with your second part (that I quoted). This has always been my biggest pet peeve in Politardia. Posts of the form "LOL Ur Wrong", "Post Better", and the worst "Strawman !!!1!" without any content or explanation should be an auto-temp-ban.

ETA: Also a poster who asks for an explanation, then dismisses it "TL;DR" style.

That's true. And I think that largely was the centerpiece of the SM2 debate - those who don't think he was banned quickly enough versus otherwise.

I personally like what Sklansky has said earlier. I believe they prefer to let controversial speech ride and be debated before quelling any debate. I do think theoretically, there should be more room for being able to debate controversial ideas. And let's face it, issues of bigotry are alive and well in today and cannot be separated from politics. As such, you can't give both sides their voice if you are hyper sensitive to racism.

I think Duker had some valid comments about some over sensitivity. While I generally agree with Fly's general readings, I think he always resorts to attacking a Fly with a cannonball when a subtler attack might lead to better results.

I think there are definitely a lot of people who support things like Voter ID who really don't consider race. So they support ideas that seem very likely to be put into action for racist reasons, even though some of the people who support it do so without knowing it (or supporting it for that reason)

I still think the tough question is - what is the line or balance between allowing people who may very well be racist to be given a voice (which again, is kind of needed if you really want to give a fair reflection of our political world) and creating a place promoting racism?

I don't have an issue with us as a community figuring it out as we go along. I would initially be influenced by Sklansky's wish to let ideas be battled with speech. And if something becomes problematic evaluate it then.

FWIW- I find the few people who just troll by making bigotted remarks (who may not even mean it - they're just trolling - like omnishakira ??) more objectionable then SM2. SM2 was at least, as best we can tell, revealing what he really thought and in that respect, whether it had an effect or not, you could somewhat engage him. I prefer that over the posting-bigotry-just-to-troll liberals that is more disruptive since their purpose is not actually to have an honest dialogue about anything.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/21...ained-1389888/

Just lolban the most obvious forms of hate speech and let the rest ride. This doesn't have to be complicated. Those who can't handle the gray can go back to chained politics discussions.

Let racists be racist, but let mods give custom undertitles to racists that identify them as racists.

Scarlet letter ITT

Some contenders:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/21...archy-1335459/

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/21...-left-1455070/

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/21...enced-1458588/

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/21...-over-1455135/

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/21...e-1-a-1422597/

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/21...-lies-1392284/

Also there have been over 72,000 posts in the forum and over 500 threads. So that may speak for it's existence more than any one user's opinion about it it's worthiness.

If Mat was honest at wanting 2p2 being as good as it can be, then no, racism shouldn't be allowed on the site. Users of different nationalities and races come here. Why would you want to drive them away by allowing bigotry?

Unchained really has no need to exist any longer after LirvA self-banned. There's rarely anything of actual interests posted here. Bruce's drama bomb thread is perhaps one of those instances.

I'd just like to point out that DIB is actually right about something for once.

So, here's what I got.

1. A thread that's been done numerous times in Alta, except this one has a lot more insults

2. A thread that's abjectly terrible and devoid of any meaningful content but for insults.

3, 4, 6. Threads that would have been just fine in Alta.

5. See #1.

I will say that thread #1 was much better in PU than in politics. It's not just about 'more insults' its about being able to have a more realistic dialogue. To be honest, I don't see much difference between calling someone trolling a troll and calling someone saying something racist a racist.

It's not super surprising that you think threads would be fine in politics - since you obviously feel like that's the best way for threads to be modded.

3, 4, and 6 seemed to go just fine by Politics standards even without Politics standards, so I'm not sure what real value Unchained adds to them, unless you want to count Spank as being more inspired to start threads in a forum he mods.

I'm not really clear what has to be proven about this forum? If it has sufficient traffic and that traffic isn't involved in running some illegal businesses, what is the issue?

I would offer that a substantial amount of the traffic in this forum is from people who also traffic the other politics forum. Obviously they feel there is a difference between one and the other.

It's not that I am more inspired to start threads here, but I sometimes have a big idea for a general theme, but not much of an OP to immediately go with it. Like the political lies thread started out with a few wtfs, then developed into something slightly more than yet another tax is theft debate. I thought this approach would not jibe with in a forum with any standards for a substantive OP. I'm happy to be mistaken about this and chalk it up to erring on the side of respecting alto.

I haven't read them, but are you saying that there is no single post in threads 3,4, and 6 that would be problematic in regular Politics?

+1
I had once thought unchained could function as a place to move threads and posts that did not meet the alto standards, but this practice never developed. Mods of other forums have brought threads here, like goofy's video game sexism thread and a few others.

Yeah, skimming through #3 I'm pretty sure a number of people would have been banned in there.

I'm pretty sure Lirva would have been banned in #6 within the first 10 posts.

Kurto nailed it.

Nothing has to be proven.

The fact that Wookie seems to think so is expresses one of the bigger problems with the main thread. Some of the unchained threads are more enjoyable to read and take part in because its lacks the conformity of the main thread. Its not quite as interesting to read a thread where the same 15 people with an average post count of 40k go back and forth either agreeing with each other or trolling the one guy to where he either gets banned or leaves for good.

The main political forum consists of some of the most addicted forum users ive ever seen. From what I've seen, unchained has brought in some outsiders and at least allowed them to "temporarily" voice an opinion that would make for a exciting discussion to watch and learn without getting insta-banned as soon as they entered.

As someone who recently discovered Politics and Politics Unchained, I'd be disappointed if unchained was closed. I find it way more enjoyable to read than regular politics. There is the obvious entertainment value, and there is the satisfaction of seeing terrible posters being called terrible (instead of having them ramble for pages in a polite silence).

Spank, bring back your old avatar.

I think I was just a step ahead, but I'll give the credit to you.

I've asked for Wookie's opinion because, of those who disagree with me, i value his opinion the most.

My biggest hurdle in deciding whether or not to keep this forum open is opinions like the one above. I don't agree with it in the slightest, but if there are a number of people who perceive this forum in that way and go out of their way to protest its existence, it's not worth the hassle for me and the company.