In the near future this version of the 2+2 politics forum will end and be archived (still available to read), and a new version will begin.

Before that happens, I think it might be useful to discuss the vision I have of that new version. These are ideas I've already discussed with the 2+2 admins, and which are based both on my conversations with them, as well as my own observations and feedback from years of discussions about the politics forum. Mostly I'm looking for feedback on what needs to be clarified, and I want to have a chance to try to explain the motivation behind some of the ideas a bit, and to answer some questions. I expect this thread may live on for a little while in the new forum to serve those purposes.

Bear in mind that the below is a work in progress...

-----

The overarching goal: a high-signal-to-noise-ratio discussion forum for political debate and arguments between an ideologically diverse group of posters.

-----

Also note: I will moderate this thread fairly strictly, in accordance with the above, especially the first guideline. However, I am going to bed shortly, so if you go crazy I will likely not clean it up until morning :P

Looks good. Given the issues of politics within 2+2 would you consider explicit rules banning attacks on the site, other sub-forums and posters with no right of reply?

Wow, well named already making this thread a safe space for his vision and not an invitation to actually discuss it.

If you want to discuss the actual OP, feel free. I should note that I'm mostly interested in the opinions of people who might want to participate in the forum. I'm not sure if that includes you. If it does, great. If not, that's also fine, but then I'd prefer it if you didn't treat this as an opportunity to take shots at me which aren't productive.

Allow me to quote the OP:

You may not like the tone, but what on earth was my post doing, if not that?

Undelete it, you coward.

Additionally, this is not your forum yet.

I'm skeptical that this is really what is needed. The principle of charity is a useful tool, but I don't see much appetite for the purpose for which it is apt. Few people here, whether liberal/progressive or conservative, seem interested in exploring the perspective of the people with which they disagree. There is a basic breakdown of respect between Democrats and Republicans, with each side viewing the perspective of the other as deranged or trollish. What is actually needed for the forum you want to work is more tolerance for views ideologically committed people view as intolerable. But this intolerance, especially of racism, sexism homophobia, etc is a part of the ideology itself, so you can't ask people to give it up without also asking them to give up their views.

As far as whether or not it is acceptable for me to make this thread or to moderate it, you can take that up with Mat if you want, but preferably by PM or in the mod forum.

I'm gonna need clarity.

I certainly expect this version, if moderated strictly (which is my intent), will be lower traffic, and high maintenance.

It seems like you're suggesting though that it's just impossible for people on the left with strong anti-racist (and etc.) views to talk to people on the right at all. Maybe that's true, but I think it might be slightly too pessimistic.

There's sort of two sets of reasons for why I've landed on this proposal. The first set of reasons is based on what 2+2 wants. The second set of reasons is what I think would be an interesting forum. Either way it seems to me that any plausible new version of the 2+2 politics forum will have to try to address some of these issues. If it doesn't work, then it doesn't work.

confirming what well named is saying is all true. the official announcement and timeline will come from him when he feels it's appropriate. sometime next week, i assume.

Pretty much exactly what I always thought this forum should be and those are pretty much the unofficial rules of debate leagues.

Will well named be able to manage as he sees fit or if people are exiled from the forum and complain will he be usurped by ownership and management. I certainly hope well named had this spelled out as it was a big part of the friction previously.

if a single person complains about well named they don't deserve to live, let alone post.

We're coming at this from a different angle and perhaps even using a slightly different definition of 'bad faith' but I strongly agree with this:

I'm at the point where I facepalm behind mentions of 'bad faith' and 'trolling' and, boy, don't even get me started on 'gaslighting' because, to put a fine point on it, they are not doing those things and what they're saying is what they actually believe. It's rare when I'm driven to the point of going, "Wait, hold up, you can't be serious," but for many it seems to be the default position. And I empathize with why one would want and need to believe this, but it doesn't make it true. I don't know if it's gonna take Ivanka or Don Jr. or maybe even Barron becoming president before they realize that these people are saying isn't in bad faith, it's in good faith of trying to defend the indefensible.

Yeah, it's not about good faith I agree with you they all believe what they are saying. In order to post here you have to believe they are deep down good people. That's the ultimate disconnect. If you act like there's just two sets of people both wanting the best for everyone but disagreeing about how to achieve that, welcome to forum 2.0. However if you think trump supporters want bad outcomes, that they vote Republican because they like the petty day to day viciousness against people who aren't like them and you have the temerity to intimate as such then you're a mean kid letting personal insults get in the way of discourse and all the rest of that nonsense. Good faith, bad people.

I don't understand why you need to close this forum and start a new one?

It will become more clear as Republicans gobble up entities like CNN and launch the new and improved CNN 2.0.

To get rid of all the bad posters who just attack people, stifle debate and don't put forward arguments and bring in beacons of pure logic like ToothSayer, Bundy et al who have never attacked anyone. Just like the hero of the novel 1984 by libertarian thinker George Orwell.

I know you're joking but just because there was so much consternation about something like in this the other thread: I disagree :P

This is not true, in my view. I don't think you have to believe this. You just have to be willing to participate in the spirit of the forum. The rules are just instrumental to achieving a desired outcome, and that outcome is not that you should believe that your political opponents are good people.

Yeah, I don't think it was strictly necessary. I could probably make a coherent argument for why everything that has happened might be for the best, but it would be post-hoc rationalization.

In reality, the current politics community being shut down, and then subsequently that group deciding to launch a new community elsewhere, happened very chaotically, and it wasn't done with the goal in mind of starting this new version. At this point -- for better or worse -- the migration of that original community is fait accompli, and I personally hope they succeed in their goals. The truth is I would not have sent them elsewhere, but I also wouldn't have tried to launch a second forum while they were still here given some forum history I don't want to belabor too much. So it's all pretty random.

The question that was left over after the decision was made for the old forum to move elsewhere was whether there ought to continue to be some politics forum here, despite the original intent to get rid of it entirely. The new forum described here is the outcome of conversations with the admins in which it was decided that there should be. And now here we are.

I still don't understand why you need to close this forum and start a new one?
It's not like people need to create a new account to post in the new one and you realise people posting in the exiled forum can still post here, right?
The way some people speak here make it sounds people posting in exiled are dead or had their account closed.

Ah, I'm sorry. I answered the wrong question. This is a choice I don't have a strong opinion about myself, but in my mind starting new rather than just changing the rules here is mostly an attempt to respect some requests from Wookie and the old politics regs. They wanted to preserve a read-only copy of the forum, and I think many don't want to feel associated at all with whatever happens next. They have a sense of ownership of this content that I feel I ought to respect.

From my perspective it would be nice to inherit some of the threads, but there's also maybe some symbolic value in a fresh start. So I dunno, that's how I've landed. It's certainly a debatable decision.

I think you should start the new politics with a single (or two) issue and heavily moderate all parts that do not stay on point. Instead of deleting the offending posts or portions of, perhaps initially crossing out the infracting language for transparency will show us what is expected.

Initial posts should contain a thesis of sorts - this is my opinion and here are three reasons that support my opinion.

As politics is as much about changing the rules of the game as it is playing the game by the rules, an accompanying thread for the expected derailments, including debates about the modding, may allow you to keep the debate in the main thread on point.

By example, the Slightest/Rica immigrant debate was derailed by an argument that Trump only wants white, not brown, immigrants. Certainly worthy of discussion, but not at all on point to Slightest's premise that "all merit based immigration systems are inherently racist" or Zica's counter arguments. Throw those posts in a accompanying containment thread.

Dont bring back the low content junk like "Trumps America" until you have established some civilized discussion threads.

That may be the next step if things don’t go the way ownership expects in the new forum.

I made this point just recently that the nature of the world we live in is not a popularity contest and that oftentimes being on the side of the "few" is more correct than being on the side of the "many".
I think it is a good one. Can we talk about what conspiracy theories are considered offensive and why?
Why not just have the requirement that people are expected to argue in good faith and skip the censorship?