I think we have to be really careful not to ignore that in politcs a good/bad argument is often nothign to do wth the logic or truth of the argument.

Correctly and logically arguing that an opponents argument is illogical/false can be a very bad political argument

From my limited time in this forum, I think almost anyone could easily do a better job than he did. Sorry if that is coming across as a personal insult, but I think the new moderation should be almost completely different than it has been.

I'm curious to see how long the people here turn browser's undertitle from "niceness enforcer" to "just **** off already"

I really find that undertitle interesting; those two words juxtaposed together really stand out. As if intentions are good but the results, not so much. Or ends justify the means sort of thing. In any event I'm sure browser has been briefed by other mods on this forum and its main players and has some of idea of what is in store.

Would be funny if people are able to post about whatever floats their boats as long as they're nice about it. That would be something else!

Some main problems for newcomers
1) half a dozen regs that are just unlikable. Why try and join a group of people who are rather unappealing?
2) getting drowned out in the noise of some rapid, long winded posters
3)some of the most advanced trolls around who are able to decimate a person's will to put forth any opinion or argument
4) just the overall impression that of wtf is going on here? Why are people arguing forever and not moving on?

It is hard to take this place seriously with this kind of content

I think what you say here is both completely incorrect, and is a good part of the reason why there is so much contention both here and in general political debate. If more people valued logical argument, better decisions could be made, and some minds could actually be changed. I don't even know what kind of political argument you believe could be illogical but still a good argument.

This seems ideal to me, and I really can't understand why anyone would disagree.

For example, I think the idea that "9/11 was an inside job" is completely ridiculous and has only the most miniscule probability of being true, but it wouldn't offend me to have a thread where someone argued that position.
I might find it interesting to read why someone believes that, I might like to rebut his arguments, and if neither of those are true, I can just ignore the thread; its existence is not harming anyone.

I'm not 100% sure I know what chezlaw means, but I certainly think most political argument aren't about a contrast between logical vs illogical arguments, it is more about contrasting narratives and framings. And a lot of issues with things like polarizing have much deeper roots to them than whether people are sanitizing the language they use in debates.

I definitely agree that it would much better if more people valued logical argument. How we might achieve this is very worthy topic.

Personal attacks (perceived even if not intended) act against valuing logic/truth so anyone arguing a position is stupid because it is in fact stupid risks being stupid themselves if their intention was to correct the logic/falsity in the mind of the person feeling attacked.

The brexit case in ther UK was full of illogical/untrue arguments - they were extremely good political arguments and the attempts to disprove them were awful polical arguments even though they were correct.

Ok I really should pretend to care about Christmas and stop beating a horse to death on the internet, so one final point

I think it is important to contrast what you think is good general advice and what you think is so egregious that moderation action must enforce. I think you should be far more cautious with the latter and keep a wide gap between the too. Honestly, I take "bad argument" and "stupid argument" and "illogical argument" as all pretty darned synonymous but sure I suppose stupid is a hair more likely to raise hackles. So if I was giving advice I would suggest people think carefully and use the less provoking thing - regulars will note I care quite a bit about the language we use for instance to describe trans people. But I think there is an important distinction between offering that advice and saying this problem is so bad that moderator fiat must end it. Because now you are up against a level of tone policing on the forum where people have to be carefully sanitizing their posts to eliminate even the most minor of insults going above and beyond Rule 1 of the forum and applying to arguments as well as just people. And even if all of this is done, and everyone sits up straight and whatever else you think is good general advice, we haven't really moved forward in solving the actual problems in political discourse of which lack of civility I would put fairly low down on the list.

Tbf there is more diversity of thought here and more tolerance of alternative viewpoints than most forums. But those views tend to be right of the forum consensus.

The forum however consensus is in no way left leaning and bog standard right wing liberal support of the imperialistic status quo.

But like I said, unlike reddit and Twitter (and you know where), they do allow anti-establishment opinions.

You've mentioned my undertitle a couple of times now so let me explain it. First the niceness part. The whole Be Nice theme is just a shorthand way of reminding people that everyone is to be treated respectfully and personal insults are not allowed. It doesn't place any additional requirements or demands on anyone that aren't already in the rules. It also captures the idea of creating a welcoming and enjoyable atmosphere for all posters and visitors. So when posting, "is that nice?" Or "that wasn't nice" became informal terminology when discussing post appropriateness.

When we implemented this approach in B&M, the results were striking. Once people saw that their input was considered, and the name calling stopped, the number of posters grew and moderation issues almost disappeared. The users themselves saw the differences and so the standards became internalized in the forum. So then as new people arrived they adopted the same respectful and "nice" posting style. Generally speaking I did not have to impose my will upon a resistant community.

Unfortunately there were a handful of posters who refused to get on board and wanted to persist in the personal insult business. So in those few instances I had to take disciplinary action against them. Some people just feel that internet posting is a blood sport and a zero sum game. They won't change so it is best that they just move on to a forum more aligned with their interests. Hence the enforcer part of the title.

Why would you think they were "awful arguments"? Do you mean they were actually correct arguments, but weren't very persuasive? If so, I would still call them good arguments, not awful ones. If someone can't understand a correct argument, that is a flaw with the people, not the argument.

They were awful because all they did was reinforce the effective but untrue/illogical arguments while displacing other true/logical arguemnts that migth have actually been effective.

You may call it a flaw with people. Wouldn't it then also be a flaw to ignore that flaw? Note i'm against untrue/illogical arguments from my side (some think that is a flaw with me) but that doens't mean all logical/true arguments are good. Often we should move the debate on as fast as possible.

I know I'm violating my own claim, but you get that "Niceness Enforcer" is positively Orwellian, right?

I don't think this forum is B&M nor should you expect approaches that worked there to work there. Sure, excessive condescension in B&M just seems silly. But politics is inherently confrontational. People are debating deeply held, highly impactful beliefs about the world and our place in it. There are a lot of lenses to encourage that debate being effective, and I "be nice" just feels like it misses any depth to the challenges to those debates and replaces it with a saccharine phrase that is more or less empty.

Just ban the dogshit posters, it’s not complicated. I’m sure whatever system worked in B&M will be fine here.

Uke how about you just wait and see. Maybe he isn't the best communicator, so give him time to see what happens. You seem overly concerned and you're coming across like a high maintenance karen

How many regular posters are even on this outdated sub forum? A dozen? Even if some are high on the derp scale there is not that much one can cut before the forum may as well be shut down. The mods are not paid here and they all burn out babysitting this crowd of older white dudes. As I see it, they can do as they please and the people who still come here can decide if they want to continue or leave (like the others who created their own forum). As I have done with all the unpaid mods before him - I wish good luck to this newest one in this adventure.

But everyone likes you here and we wouldn't want to see you go.

What's that Carlin meme again?

I don't know why you think that the phrase Be Nice equates to saccharine discussions, fake civility or lack of passion. It doesn't. I could have worded it in the opposite form, Don't Be a ****ing *******. I hope you don't believe that it is impossible to debate politics without being a ****ing *******. If someone cannot conduct a discussion on political issues without being rude, condescending and insulting that is a vocabulary issue not a modding issue.

Be careful what you wish for, Trolly!

I like the idea of trying out the moderation strategy that worked in B&M.

Not Orwellian at all. It's essentially a Golden Rule policy. Treat other posters like you would like to be treated.

Only an academic would find that complicated.

You aren't insulting me. I'm not a moderator.

The problem you are going to encounter is how to deal with posters who are "just asking questions" in a polite, ostensibly nice way. Those questions might include: (1) Is there a biological explanation for why the winners of Nobel Prizes in STEM subjects and Fields medals are mostly men?; or (2) Have there been any studies about whether transgender teenagers are higher risk babysitters than cisgender babysitters?

Back when Kelhus was around WN would just ban any discussions that delved into nature/nature. Arguments for nature are a bit too tricky for our current political climate to handle.

But with Kelhus gone we don't actually have any nature proponents posting here so those discussions could go differently now.

Those are both excellent questions. I don't see your point.