I see the argument for some leniency in regards to tempers flaring in political discussion, but to that end I will make two remarks:

1. Those who think they're tough enough to be dishing it out should be prepared to recieve, moderator or no.

2. There can be no double standard - no skewed application of this principle in favor of more accepted opinions over others.

And at the same time, while I think some inflamation is understandable, I think it is in every context undesirable. This is a philosophy forum after all, and not some public square where we're throwing rotten vegetables at each other.

Personally I think moderators should be exempt from this, and should be expected to behave properly no matter what thread they post on. This is simply because impartial, fair exercise of authority and emotion do not mix, at all. It reflects badly not only on themselves, but on TPF as a whole, and it will quickly create the impression of biased moderation.

This is as good a time as any to say this: Mods are not gods, to err is human.

Mods are not gods — Agent Smith

But some might like to think they are :wink:

Not asking for the 10 Commandments.

Only to consider a simple question and give feedback re:

So, Politics is also seen as exceptional and less moderation is the rule.
Should this be the case? — Amity

Also follow-up to:

I will bring this up with other mods... — fdrake

Do you have an answer to the question or any practical, down-to-earth suggestions?
Or is it a case of *shrugs*.
Have to admit, I'm at the shrugging stage myself... :roll:

Moderation is not a justice system, it's an editorial system

Moderation is bound to be unfair, because no one reads every post on every thread, and the lines between stupidity and malice are impossible to draw. If you stick to obscure topics, you and post infrequently, you can troll the boards for years. Once you get noticed, you start getting watched.

If you are passionate about philosophy, as I hope we all are, then I expect that passion to overflow from time to time and I expect to get moderated; it's not the end of the world. But moderation is not a justice system, it's an editorial system. If Jamal doesn't like daffodils, he's entitled to ban them from his site. So don't mention daffodils Wordsworth's favourite flowers, and roll your eyes in private.

Is 'naive' a term of abuse? Is 'sophisticated'? Where on the spectrum would you like to be seen to be?

Mrs un has a book coming out in a few weeks, and I am so fucking glad to see the back of the to and fro of editorial changes and counter-changes that have been going on seemingly forever. The moderation on this site is really weak and sloppy compared to what a 'proper' publishing outfit does.

f you are passionate about philosophy, as I hope we all are, then I expect that passion to overflow from time to time and I expect to get moderated; it's not the end of the world — unenlightened

It's not about occasional passionate exchanges but extended 'vitriol and inflamed tempers' in a political discussion about a serious event or subject. As per the Ukraine Crisis thread.

Also see 'simple question' and the OP with key parts in bold.

I'm sure you're right. I don't care at this point.

I don't care at this point. — Tate

I'm guessing most of the mods and participants are passed the point of giving a damn as well.
So it all balances out nicely.

I'm always curious as to what 'taking it to the team' looks like, in terms of action.
End of thread.

It's not about occasional passionate exchanges but extended 'vitriol and inflamed tempers' in a political discussion about a serious event or subject. As per the Ukraine Crisis thread. — Amity

Yes, I actually agree with you if you are saying that you would prefer a tighter rein on flaming and ad homs, and the more controversial the topic, the more thorough the editing, rather than the more lax. And I agree that mods should lead by example in the first instance. It's always an ongoing discussion, and one expresses a view, and then gets on with philosophy, or if it is unbearable, takes ones' pearls elsewhere.

Yes, I actually agree with you if you are saying that you would prefer a tighter rein on flaming and ad homs, and the more controversial the topic, the more thorough the editing, rather than the more lax. — unenlightened

It really is as simple as looking at what seems to be current policy and questioning it.
Not editing as such, just being a bit more aware of what's going on and not being a part of the problem.
A bit of care and vigilance applied with as even a hand as possible. No obvious favouritism.
But as you say:

It's always an ongoing discussion, and one expresses a view, and then gets on with philosophy, or if it is unbearable, takes ones' pearls elsewhere. — unenlightened

Why should it be allowed to become so toxic that some people decide to leave?
We don't even know who takes one look at TPF and thinks, "Not for me, thank you very much, bye!"
The views that are not expressed and so not heard.

Never mind. It's all been said before. Time to give it yet another rest.
Hope Mrs un's book does well.
Be well :sparkle:

I'm always curious as to what 'taking it to the team' looks like, in terms of action.
End of thread. — Amity

We've actually been talking about this post among ourselves, and we're trying to think of the best response. The delay in responding wasn't because we didn't care,; iit's more we were formulating a best response.

We very much appreciate this input.

I'll give my personal thoughts, not necessarily the final word:

I think the Ukraine thread got very out of control and we should have done better to reel it in early. It resulted in lingering bad feelings.

The question is whether we need a rule change (as you suggest) for political threads, or do we just need to acknowledge we didn't properly enforce that thread. That's the ongoing discussion.

I also agree the mods will be held to a higher standard as a role model and less tolerance of bad behavior of a mod should be expected.

I also don't have much sympathy for any bad actor who tries to justify his or her bad acts on the basis of what a moderator might do. We're all adults who know right from wrong, and the vast majority of posters are able to behave consistently without reacting to perceived hypocrisy and double standards by responding in kind. That is, levy your complaints if you think a mod is out of line. We'll deal with that. But just because Hanover might act a fool, doesn't mean you get to too.

Of course, this last paragraph was not directed to you as in you, but just to other comments in this thread.

I also don't have much sympathy for any bad actor who tries to justify his or her bad acts on the basis of what a moderator might do. We're all adults who know right from wrong, and the vast majority of posters are able to behave consistently without reacting to perceived hypocrisy and double standards by responding in kind. That is, levy your complaints if you think a mod is out of line. We'll deal with that. But just because Hanover might act a fool, doesn't mean you get to too.

Of course, this last paragraph was not directed to you as in you, but just to other comments in this thread. — Hanover

Does this concern my removed comment in the Climate Change thread?

We very much appreciate this input. — Hanover

:up:

The question is whether we need a rule change (as you suggest) for political threads, or do we just need to acknowledge we didn't properly enforce that thread. That's the ongoing discussion. — Hanover

I've not made up my mind on it yet, never actually have. Personal thoughts:

For tighter standards on inflammatory posts in political discussions:
( 1 ) Might make a more inclusive atmosphere in those threads. People don't tend to intervene in shouty bar arguments, is shouty bar academic argument the wanted vibe for political discussion here?
( 2 ) Might make the overall level of content in the discussion better and lower the average blood pressure on those threads, a sort of 'public health' intervention.
( 3 ) Aggressive atmospheres arguably impact marginalised and socially nervous voices the most.

Against:
( 1 ) Is it possible to consistently enforce tighter standards on it in general? As @unenlightened said, there's extreme ambiguity once you remove the clear cut "just flaming" posts. I suspect that tighter standards promote the passive aggression of academic discourse rather than good old fashioned accusatory tirades and insulting comments.
( 2 ) It's considerably more effort to enforce tighter standards about a thing. Especially so here. The kind of mod actions being discussed would typically be edits rather than deletes - dialogues regarding conduct rather than warnings. That's a lot more work. I doubt anyone actually wants the job of going through every post of every political thread and trying to hold it to a consistent editorial standard.
( 3 ) Excluding intemperate voices in political discussion is its own form of exclusion; I personally want people to be able to express anger in political discussion, with representatives of positions which make them angry. I don't know how to editorialise anger in debate without running into all the ambiguities regarding its expression.

Does this concern my removed comment in the Climate Change thread? — Tzeentch

Nothing I said was motivated by something you said in that thread. I haven't really been following that thread, so I'm not sure what was deleted of yours from there.

In my experience, political discussion can easily turn into a poisonous cancer that can warp even the most gentle people into insane psychopaths. That is because political discussions are often about identity and power, and rarely invite people who are open minded and seeking truth. They should be heavily moderated to ensure they are philosophical discussions, and not emotional rants.

In my brief stint as a mod, I waded into the Ukraine thread a couple times (IIRC) and deleted a few runs of nasty exchanges, I think. But I think I only ever edited a couple posts to save "content" and remove something else, and only when the something else was easy to remove. So I let stand some nasty stuff because it had content mixed in with the insults and belittling, and in those cases I warned participants that in future they would see their substantive points disappear along with the insults if they didn't edit themselves better. Some of you reading this may remember getting a little "Don't do that" from me and a warning that if you did it again, even in a post with actual substance, that whole post would be gone.

It's just far too much work to have the mods actually sorting the wheat from the chaff word by word, sentence by sentence, or even paragraph by paragraph. And I was never comfortable deciding whether a point was relevant or substantive -- I wanted to leave that to the community. I never deleted anything as irrelevant. Even the guideline to "stay on topic" struck me as ridiculous on this site, where every thread meanders into being about something else than the OP eventually, and I never enforced that.

I don't know how effective my little campaign for civility was. A bit. I worried a lot about the chilling effects of aggression and manipulation, that it would discourage participation, and I thought our mandate as mods was to encourage participation -- especially from new arrivals. That put me more toward the puritan end of the scale compared to the other mods and admins, who by and large were more tolerant of a little rough and tumble, even a little name-calling, and even insults so long as they were clever. Among people who've been contributing to this site or the old site for a decade, and know each other, no one's going to take that for more than it is. But I think a new arrival to this site might be horrified at how members talk to each other. And even longstanding groups of friends can have what amounts to institutionalized bullying as well as friendly sparring among perceived equals. I have no tolerance at all for bullying and I think some of what goes on here is not best described as "passionate" but as attempts at bullying. I think you should be able to read an entire day's posts on TPF and not once see "Reading comprehension not your strong suit, eh?"

TLDR: no, there shouldn't be a different standard for political discussions, never should have been; yes, we should raise the standards of the site in general, but not so much through increased enforcement (meaning specifically deleting and editing posts) but by encouraging members to change their own posting habits and changing the community-wide expectations of how you express yourself here.

But I think mine is the minority view. I think a lot of people would perceive such a site as less interesting and less fun, and some people wish the site were even more "gloves off". But if the thrill of landing a zinger is what you're after, Twitter is right down the hall.

But some things are stark, crazy obvious, staring us in the face.
Perhaps we've become immune.
Increasingly hostile and personal insults would not be acceptable in a real-life meetup.
What makes people think they can get away with it on internet forums?
Disrupting and distracting from a serious subject.

The analogy isn’t strong, here. This isn’t a meetup. There is no social setting. We’re just reading and writing in largely solitary situations, where no harm, distraction, or disruption from other members can really befall us.

This explains why people think they can “get away with it” on Internet forums. There are no social repercussions for being hostile to other members. No threat of violence, ostracism, or shame. But we’re also largely anonymous, so much so that any insulting and hostile poster is really swinging at a caricature in his own head. Thus, each insult or hypocrisy reveals much more about the offender than his intended victim. He’s fighting something of his own creation. That’s the irony of the whole thing.

More importantly, insult, satire, diatribe, are all important facets of democracy in particular, politics in general, and I agree with the mods that some leeway should be given in such discussions. To maintain a modicum of decorum without eliminating these important facets is no easy task, but to make it easier on all involved, maybe we ought to grow thicker skins.

Nothing I said was motivated by something you said in that thread. I haven't really been following that thread, so I'm not sure what was deleted of yours from there. — Hanover

:up:

Really great to see such excellent communication of thoughts.

I think the Ukraine thread got very out of control and we should have done better to reel it in early. It resulted in lingering bad feelings.

The question is whether we need a rule change (as you suggest) for political threads, or do we just need to acknowledge we didn't properly enforce that thread. That's the ongoing discussion. — Hanover

The Ukraine was the very worst of examples; I doubt we will see the like again but we might.
There are still lesser but just as bad examples of extended aggression e.g. related to Climate Change. Having a 'General' thread where anything goes, until it doesn't...because of something deemed 'irrelevant' even if it did relate to the topic. What?
I won't go on about that because I wasn't involved but I did notice what I would regard as a bullying element. Complaints were made, not by me. I stood by...

Whenever the word 'bullying' is used or implied, it triggers accusations that the person is thin-skinned, sensitive and 'playing the victim'. Sometimes the ''It was only a joke, can't you even see that?!'' card is played. Basically, there is a ganging up and it's not a pretty sight.
It can have long-lasting effects if the person isn't strong enough to withstand the attacks; physical, verbal or psychological.

To return to the question of a potential rule change for political threads.
I argued for a higher level of moderation because it matters that people can discuss and learn from different perspectives without ducking bullets or being caught in crossfire. Or even being targets of abuse.
In the high mist of low emotion, views and arguments can suffer. Nothing can be seen or listened to clearly or carefully.

Right now, the level of moderation is low, lots of leeway given.
My preference is for a higher level of vigilance.
If that can't be the case, why not reach a compromise?
The middle way, as is the case for all other threads.

Agreed.

Thanks for your carefully considered 'For' and 'Against' views re: tighter standards on inflammatory posts in political discussions.

I'll just pick out a few:
For:

( 3 ) Aggressive atmospheres arguably impact marginalised and socially nervous voices the most. — fdrake

This has a hint of "Don't upset the poor victim" about it.
There are plenty marginalised and socially inadequate voices who are the most strident attackers.

Against:

( 1 ) Is it possible to consistently enforce tighter standards on it in general? As unenlightened said, there's extreme ambiguity once you remove the clear cut "just flaming" posts. I suspect that tighter standards promote the passive aggression of academic discourse rather than good old fashioned accusatory tirades and insulting comments. — fdrake

The question of consistency is problematic, given individual, subjective decisions.
That is perhaps an argument for clearer guide-lines for mods, including type of behaviour to look out for and knowledge of persistent offenders, or those flagged for consideration.
Not everyone wants to be seen as a 'flagger' and some think it should be handled in thread.
Sometimes, that exacerbates matters...

[BTW, the flagging system doesn't allow the person to give a reason. The post is then deleted or not depending on mod judgement without much in the way of communication.
Deletion isn't always the answer.]

There will always be passive aggression, usually, a coping mechanism to avoid direct confrontation.

Ah, you have nostalgia for Good old-fashioned Boys' Own Own Fisticuffs, eh?
How very exciting and so old hat :roll:

(2)....The kind of mod actions being discussed would typically be edits rather than deletes - dialogues regarding conduct rather than warnings. That's a lot more work. I doubt anyone actually wants the job of going through every post of every political thread and trying to hold it to a consistent editorial standard. — fdrake

Why edits?
It only makes the culprit look better than he/she is, if there is no reason given for it.
So not easy to identify any pattern.

Why not a simple warning? Why would a dialogue be necessary?
First Warning, 2nd... a process...

It does involve more work but perhaps it's worth it.
How else do you nip it in the bud before escalation?
There's no need to go through every political thread with a finely tuned nose for trouble.
Even participants can usually smell the shit a mile away...

( 3 ) Excluding intemperate voices in political discussion is its own form of exclusion; I personally want people to be able to express anger in political discussion, with representatives of positions which make them angry. I don't know how to editorialise anger in debate without running into all the ambiguities regarding its expression. — fdrake

'Intemperate' - lack of self-control.
When it has adverse effects on others, to the detriment of respect for other perspectives, that is not a good look for a philosophy forum, IMO.
It, in itself, excludes rational thought and expression.

Anger, of course, is different and natural when it comes to issues concerning justice and equality etc.
There is just anger and OTT anger, that intemperance you talk of.
If a mod can't see the difference in type and effect, then perhaps some training is required.

Phew. I've just returned from a very pleasant walk through woods to a loch, herons and boys fishing...
Think I might have to leave this again...

Interesting and useful reflections...

Hi Srap. Sorry I won't be able to address every excellent point you made.
Suffice to say, I am in general agreement.

It's just far too much work to have the mods actually sorting the wheat from the chaff word by word, sentence by sentence, or even paragraph by paragraph. And I was never comfortable deciding whether a point was relevant or substantive -- I wanted to leave that to the community. I never deleted anything as irrelevant. Even the guideline to "stay on topic" struck me as ridiculous on this site, where every thread meanders into being about something else than the OP eventually, and I never enforced that. — Srap Tasmaner

Again, I agree that increased vigilance involves extra presence.
But is it really necessary to be hyper-vigilant to the degree described?
And yes, threads do tend to meander. Some thread starters keep a tight rein. Others are more flexible.
I think it depends on the subject being examined or explored.

Come to think of it, it's not only mods who can moderate; there is self-moderation and when that is not enough, then attention can be brought to the mod team.
The load is shared...

I don't know how effective my little campaign for civility was. A bit. I worried a lot about the chilling effects of aggression and manipulation, that it would discourage participation, and I thought our mandate as mods was to encourage participation -- especially from new arrivals. That put me more toward the puritan end of the scale compared to the other mods and admins, who by and large were more tolerant of a little rough and tumble, even a little name-calling, and even insults so long as they were clever — Srap Tasmaner

Thank you for giving this extraordinary insight into your time as moderator.
Like you, my concern has been with the perception of TPF by newcomers, but hey... sink or swim :roll:

And even longstanding groups of friends can have what amounts to institutionalized bullying as well as friendly sparring among perceived equals. I have no tolerance at all for bullying and I think some of what goes on here is not best described as "passionate" but as attempts at bullying. I think you should be able to read an entire day's posts on TPF and not once see "Reading comprehension not your strong suit, eh?" — Srap Tasmaner

That exactly hits the nail on the head.
Although, I don't expect anyone will agree. In some threads, it's more evident than others.
I've already described that above.
More recently, I noticed a :up: to a mod who would love it if certain 'disagreeable' members would be gone. Wow. How mature is that? You do know there are processes if you're not happy with behaviour, right? For us, it's the Feedback Section, right here.

TLDR: no, there shouldn't be a different standard for political discussions, never should have been; yes, we should raise the standards of the site in general, but not so much through increased enforcement (meaning specifically deleting and editing posts) but by encouraging members to change their own posting habits and changing the community-wide expectations of how you express yourself here. — Srap Tasmaner

So, it seems that we agree that the middle ground, neither low nor high, is the way forward.
I'm writing this in the practically certain knowledge that the status quo will remain.
I'm wasting my time and others are :roll:

I've bolded the part I think sounds good but question how that would be done. There's already a set of guidelines to follow. Sometimes, it's just down to style and individual voice and that's fine.
I do sometimes wonder whether there might be an overuse of emoticons. Guilty as charged.
Too quick and easy; easy too to misinterpret :smirk:

But I think mine is the minority view. I think a lot of people would perceive such a site as less interesting and less fun, and some people wish the site were even more "gloves off". But if the the thrill of landing a zinger is what you're after, Twitter is right down the hall. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, even the mention of the word 'civility' is seen as dull and boring. A bit like in politics.
Not even gonna mention our lot...
It is possible to use sarcasm in a non-hostile way. Can even be clever and fun...but some go too far.
They excite themselves.

Oh boy, I've said too much and should probably edit this post.
If yours is the minority view, then that is a pity. Cos I have sympathy for it.
Use of careful language, think before you speak, but still with a sense of humour...sounds OK to me.

Perhaps you know I've never commented on site moderation and maybe never will. In spite of the possibility that you may be one of the moderators (during your stint) responsible for deleting my threads, and several have been deleted in the past months, i like what you have said in your post above. Hence this response.

In particular I like your take on "civility" and your mentioning institutionalized bullying. But I'm curious, perhaps in an amused sort of rhetorical way, how far do our indignations and appeals go? Do we speak up for others? Does it ever translate into our conduct? Or do they forever remain as something that comes up when it affects us personally? I think this may even be a serious philosophical question all of us can ask ourselves.

When i initially joined the site, oh about a year and few months ago, i went through numerous incidents wherein "veteran" members of this site went on a trolling spree, trolling me on all my threads. The attempts were "Nasty", would be putting it mildly. It was deliberate and almost clockwork. Of course, all this was supported by the silence of the mods and perhaps some behind the screen chuckles. Then of course there seemed to be the secret handshakes of other veteran members, and long story short, it was a group effort.

Now, having been through all that, and having established these trolls to be the spineless cowards that they are, one questions, how can you make appeals to civility when this civility never translates into our conduct. In partuclar, how can such appeals be made to spineless cowards, that think, and advocate, "insult, and diatribe" as normal, while labeling such actions as part of "democracy"? Ha. Says a lot there, doesn't it. In any case, just a note to say appreciated the post.

the part I think sounds good but question how that would be done — Amity

My approach involved threats, so yeah there's enforcement behind it. Roughly, I would threaten to consider (further) disrespectful language a virus; when it shows up, you don't extract the virus, you quarantine the host, which in this case would be the post it appeared in. The threat of an entire post disappearing because you indulged in a little name-calling and belittling somewhere in it, that seemed pretty persuasive, and mostly people agreed to play nice.

Playing school-marm is a crappy job though.

the secret handshakes of other veteran members — skyblack

Yeah, I think there's a bit of this. But that can also just be perception. Not everyone who feels excluded is actively being excluded, even if they're not being actively welcomed either.

having established them to be the spineless cowards that they are — skyblack

And this sort of thing is not okay with me, sorry. In a thread elsewhere on the forum, I might even flag it.

I'm going back to thinking about philosophy now.

The analogy isn’t strong, here. This isn’t a meetup. There is no social setting. We’re just reading and writing in largely solitary situations, where no harm, distraction, or disruption from other members can really befall us. — NOS4A2

So, you don't see TPF as a meeting place where philosophical subjects are debated and discussed?
You don't see the social element in The Shoutbox and Lounge, so designated to make us feel like a 'family'?
Of course, the analogy isn't perfect.
It's like comparing a physical Uni campus, fun, drinking and learning with that of the online Open University.
Online learning with forums include rules designed specifically to protect against abuse and disruptions. There are untrained and trained mods who overlook potential distractions and bullying.

This explains why people think they can “get away with it” on Internet forums. There are no social repercussions for being hostile to other members. No threat of violence, ostracism, or shame. But we’re also largely anonymous, so much so that any insulting and hostile poster is really swinging at a caricature in his own head. Thus, each insult or hypocrisy reveals much more about the offender than his intended victim. He’s fighting something of his own creation. That’s the irony of the whole thing. — NOS4A2

See above, No. It doesn't.
There are repercussions.
And no, the person at the receiving end of a verbal, hostile swing is not a caricature.
They are as real as the intended effects.
The behaviour does reveal the character of the offender. A continual barrage of insults not dealt with by mods is just wrong. Plain and simple.

More importantly, insult, satire, diatribe, are all important facets of democracy in particular, politics in general, and I agree with the mods that some leeway should be given in such discussions. To maintain a modicum of decorum without eliminating these important facets is no easy task, but to make it easier on all involved, maybe we ought to grow thicker skins. — NOS4A2

Again, I disagree re important facets of democracy.
For sure, satire and insults in newspapers are used to great effect to call attention to 'politicians'.
For sure, it's fun but how effective are they? Do you think Boris cries? He laughs in our face.
Big, bullying bastard. See, I have no objection for insults well placed and targeted.

Democracy is not fit for purpose if only the powerful and rich get to call the shots.
Important decisions are taken by those who are not moderate nor moderated.
Ethics advisors sacked and not replaced.
Politics is not fit for purpose if it serves only the privileged; governments run by narcissistic bullies.
A billionaire closing a London street so that he can get the landscapers in...

Growing a thicker skin is not an option. We're already pretty much de-sensitised in any case.
We need to be more aware of what is going on, and why.

Finally, admin and the team will make the decision.
This attempt at a democratic listening exercise is fascinating...

Agreed. — Baden

Really?

Playing school-marm is a crappy job though. — Srap Tasmaner

Yeah, and that's another piece of name-calling, innit? The not-cool look :wink:
Along with the pejorative 'Nanny State'.
OK, I'm done here. Said more than enough. Thank you for sharing; much appreciated.

I'm going back to thinking about philosophy now. — Srap Tasmaner

Really?! No, it can't be so :lol:

And this sort of thing is not okay with me, sorry. In a thread elsewhere on the forum, I might even flag it.

I'm going back to thinking about philosophy now. — Srap Tasmaner

Ha! Sir, your being ok or not ok doesn't change facts.You have the capacity to face facts, don't you? And yes, you should go back to philosophy, but not the kind that is limited only to words, but the kind that translates into conduct, you see.

Also, next time you wish to respond to a post, respond to it in totto, in context, not cut and paste what you agree or disagree with. Doing so will show a petty mind/heart that is incapable of looking at anything beyond its lip-serviced philosophy. Glad we had this chat.

I guess one can essentially ask,

Where are your concerns and sensibilities when it comes to others? Ever speak up for others? Or do your sensibilities surface only when it concerns you?

When i initially joined the site, oh about a year and few months ago, i went through numerous incidents wherein "veteran" members of this site went on a trolling spree, trolling me on all my threads. The attempts were "Nasty", would be putting it mildly. It was deliberate and almost clockwork. Of course, all this was supported by the silence of the mods and perhaps some behind the screen chuckles. Then of course there seemed to be the secret handshakes of other veteran members, and long story short, it was a group effort. — skyblack

Can't do much with unsubstantiated claims against unnamed posters but we obviously don't support trolling sprees by anyone and the debate here as far as I understand it is whether to extend the type of modding we apply to philosophical threads to political threads. No one on the mod team advocates for insult and diatribe. In fact, one argument for leaving political threads a bit freer is that posters may more likely confine their insults and diatribes there. Another is that the nature of political dialogue tends to be more confrontational and it's unrealistic to expect it to be carried on at the same level of charity as philosophical dialogue. Again, that doesn't mean any of us wants to see bad behaviour in political discussions and if there was a clear majority wanting more modding on the political threads, I'd go along with it (though this type of modding strictness question comes up periodically and it's never been possible to discern a clear majority either way, which suggests to me the community is roughly evenly split on the issue).

Really? — Amity

Yes, why not?